Scenario and setting design, with GM and players in mind

[pemerton]

If I were going to have a mentor turn out to secretly be a vampire I would certainly establish what their resources are, who their allies and enemies are, what they actually want and desire and the initial state of their relationship to the player characters. Know what they were looking to get from those relationships and have those relationships change over time.

Basically treat them as a character (who wants specific things) that can be influenced by the player characters instead of a plot device.

Depending on the tone of the campaign, surely one of the possibilities might be that, rather than successfully manipulating the PCs, they end up looking to the PCs for some sort of salvation/redemption.

 

[MGibster]

When I run something like Shadowrun or Cyberpunk I like to mess with the players by never having their employer betray them. Seriously, in Shadowrun, Mr. Johnson has never intentionally betrayed the PCs. Oh, his information isn't always perfect, but he's never set them up. And I love it! Players who don't know me well are constantly just waiting for the hamemr to drop and for Mr. Johnson to screw them over royally and I just don't do it. Seriously, this guy hired you because you're dangerous people willing to break the law. Why the hell would he screw you over?

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, if the GM just reveals this to us at some point, I’m gonna feel like he’s telling a story and we’re just playing a part. That’s not how I prefer to feel when playing.

The PCs discovering it through their own investigations would seem to be more likely approach to involve the kinds of levers and details that players can use in play, I would say.

Situationally dependent in each instance, I suppose, but on the outside ends you're right.

Sure, but there are so many ways to establish this that the “patron turned villain” trope is by no means necessary. And it could be damaging if the players feel like this was something bound to happen, and who knows if they even ever had a chance to figure it out.

The original point that @Campbell made that prompted the OP by @pemerton was that the players should have resources to gain information and to interact with things in the fiction. Allies and friends that can help them, or folks they can manipulate or bribe or what have you.

I agree the resources to figure this out should be there, but IMO the players/PCs have to get suspicious enough to proactively go looking for said resources before they will be made accessible. If they never get suspicious enough to do any digging, then so be it.

The patron turned vampire could really mess up player trust in NPCs,

Good. Some NPCs can be trusted, others can't. It's often but not always made reasonably clear which is which, and again if they blindly trust everyone then sooner or later the odds are high they'll get burned.

which also means trust in the GM.

I don't see those things as being connected. If in hindsight the untrustworthy NPC makes sense then I-as-player might even end up trusting the GM even more, in that I know she's presenting a consistent and realistic setting in which - just like real life - trusting the wrong person can get you hosed.

Yeah, I know you run long standing games with multiple play groups, but I don’t think that has much impact here. Though I’d say that if a GM were to do this, the earlier in the game likely the better.

First big campaign I ran, they got burned by this patron-turns-villain play in their second adventure. Players* and PCs* alike learned that blindly trusting people in the setting is a bad idea,; and the campaign went on for ten or so more years.

Second big campaign I ran I pulled a similar thing; only this time the players/PCs had more clues up front (all ignored) that things weren't as they seem, and two adventures in they became fully aware things were wrong. The next three or four real-world years of play were spent either avoiding that whole mess or, later, going back and dealing with it.

* - well, most of 'em, anyway. One or two never quite did get the message...

For me, it’s something that happens, but isn’t really a goal. It’s more a means of working toward a goal, I suppose.

No matter what else I-as-player have my PCs doing in the moment, as a sidelight I always want to be exploring and learning more about the setting.

 

[Fenris-77]

Cyberpunk is probably a good genre to mine for examples here as it is normally just chock full of unreliable patrons. If I'm going to run a dodgy patron, I'll usually telegraph it right away, before the players even take a job. I want them to know that dude is fishy if they take the job. It doesn't have to be specifics, even just a sense that something isn't right is enough to get the players watching their backs and looking into things. When they already know it tends to prompt the players to action, which is, generally speaking, what we should want at any point in an RPG. The same idea covers a previously trusted patron who turns dodgy. When you telegraph it it prompts all sorts of additional action as they investigate and ponder what might be going on. In both those cases interesting things are happening at the table.

By contrast, the sudden reveal method gets you none of that. It generates a single ta-da/gotcha moment, and maybe some oh that's why... thinking, but that's it. It's not really useful for generating anything at the table other than buffing the DM's opinion of themselves as a clever so-and-so.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Basically treat them as a character (who wants specific things) that can be influenced by the player characters instead of a plot device.

Yes, it's the plot device angle that irks me most about it. There are other concerns, but that's the biggest.

Depending on the tone of the campaign, surely one of the possibilities might be that, rather than successfully manipulating the PCs, they end up looking to the PCs for some sort of salvation/redemption.

But, no.... he's the big bad and needs to be part of the big showdown a few sessions down the road!

By contrast, the sudden reveal method gets you none of that. It generates a single ta-da/gotcha moment, and maybe some oh that's why... thinking, but that's it. It's not really useful for generating anything at the table other than buffing the DM's opinion of themselves as a clever so-and-so.

Yup. I am uninterested in the GM impressing me with his cleverness. Even if that's not the intention, that's how it may seem, and so any benefit is outweighed by the risks, in my mind.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Situationally dependent in each instance, I suppose, but on the outside ends you're right.

I agree the resources to figure this out should be there, but IMO the players/PCs have to get suspicious enough to proactively go looking for said resources before they will be made accessible. If they never get suspicious enough to do any digging, then so be it.

So these resources are what the OP was about. What resources should there be for players to use in play?

Like, what would make the players suspicious? Is it GM cues in playing the patron NPC and other NPCs? Is it the ability to leverage contacts and allies in the game world? Class abilities and the like?

Good. Some NPCs can be trusted, others can't. It's often but not always made reasonably clear which is which, and again if they blindly trust everyone then sooner or later the odds are high they'll get burned.

I don't see those things as being connected. If in hindsight the untrustworthy NPC makes sense then I-as-player might even end up trusting the GM even more, in that I know she's presenting a consistent and realistic setting in which - just like real life - trusting the wrong person can get you hosed.

But it's not just like real life. It's a game, and so it has to be considered as a game. No matter what, there is a relationship going on between the participants, and how the game goes will impact that relationship.

So, for instance, the betraying patron trope may wind up causing me to mistrust any or all NPCs that the GM puts in front of me. That's going to impact the game.

Now, it may not cause me to do that. But my point is that the risk is there, and the benefit I seem to get by having them betrayed in such a way... which, I should add, in your original example went even further by casting ALL the accomplishments of the PCs in a new light, that of having helped the vampire achieve his goals... is that they know there are NPCs they can't trust, I don't see that risk being worth this reward.

"Hey, everything you guys have done? It's actually been in service to this vampire because that's what I designed!" is not, in my opinion, a way to build trust between players and GM.

There are far simpler ways to establish that NPCs can't be trusted. Ones that don't potentially impact the player-GM relationship.

First big campaign I ran, they got burned by this patron-turns-villain play in their second adventure. Players* and PCs* alike learned that blindly trusting people in the setting is a bad idea,; and the campaign went on for ten or so more years.

Second big campaign I ran I pulled a similar thing; only this time the players/PCs had more clues up front (all ignored) that things weren't as they seem, and two adventures in they became fully aware things were wrong. The next three or four real-world years of play were spent either avoiding that whole mess or, later, going back and dealing with it.

* - well, most of 'em, anyway. One or two never quite did get the message...

So what were the clues that they missed in the second example? What kinds of resources were available for them to potentially learn of this betrayal beforehand?

No matter what else I-as-player have my PCs doing in the moment, as a sidelight I always want to be exploring and learning more about the setting.

I'm really only concerned about the setting in how it relates to my characters. I don't care about the pages and pages of notes the GM has written until they matter to play. And I say this as a GM who used to spend an inordinate amount of time ahead of play on worldbuilding. More often than not, the vast majority of that effort is wasted. Sure, now and again, a GM will create a cool bit of setting detail that will make me go "ah, that's clever" or similar. But unless it leads to something that is playable, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Campbell]

When it comes to betrayal I think it's really useful to ask why an NPC would betray the PCs. What do they gain from it? Why were they invested in the characters in the first place? What precipitated the face-heel turn? Betrayal tropes in fiction often do not make a whole lot of sense. Beyond that what does betrayal add that asking the player characters to do increasingly questionable stuff does not? That's often more sensible fiction, better storytelling and better gaming.

 

[Lanefan]

So these resources are what the OP was about. What resources should there be for players to use in play?

Like, what would make the players suspicious? Is it GM cues in playing the patron NPC and other NPCs? Is it the ability to leverage contacts and allies in the game world? Class abilities and the like?

Could be any or all of the above, depending on the situation. The patron might let something slip or do something to arouse suspicion (obvious example: a vampire pulling back from walking past a mirror on the wall), but more useful would be the leveraging of (and, in the case of a new campaign, the making of!) contacts and allies. Class abilities could also come into play, again situationally dependent.

But they key thing is: the players/PCs have to a) be or become suspicious and b) act on it! And for a), they sometimes need to be or become suspicious even if there's no obvious reason to do so, as in "this is too good to be true".

But it's not just like real life. It's a game, and so it has to be considered as a game.

It's a game in which I prefer to try and simulate real-life interactions where possible.

No matter what, there is a relationship going on between the participants, and how the game goes will impact that relationship.

So, for instance, the betraying patron trope may wind up causing me to mistrust any or all NPCs that the GM puts in front of me. That's going to impact the game.

Now, it may not cause me to do that. But my point is that the risk is there, and the benefit I seem to get by having them betrayed in such a way... which, I should add, in your original example went even further by casting ALL the accomplishments of the PCs in a new light, that of having helped the vampire achieve his goals... is that they know there are NPCs they can't trust, I don't see that risk being worth this reward.

"Hey, everything you guys have done? It's actually been in service to this vampire because that's what I designed!" is not, in my opinion, a way to build trust between players and GM.

There's two very different types of trust at work here, one of which I care about building and the other of which I'm quite happy to destroy.

1. Out of character, do the players inherently trust me-as-DM to run a good, fair, and fun game? Ideally, yes.
2. In character, do the players' PCs inherently trust anything I-as-GM put in front of them in the setting or fiction? I don't care.

These two things should not impact one another.

So what were the clues that they missed in the second example? What kinds of resources were available for them to potentially learn of this betrayal beforehand?

Beforehand, none, as this was the very start of the campaign. And I'll pull in @Campbell's post here, as it'll save typing the rest of this twice.

When it comes to betrayal I think it's really useful to ask why an NPC would betray the PCs. What do they gain from it? Why were they invested in the characters in the first place? What precipitated the face-heel turn? Betrayal tropes in fiction often do not make a whole lot of sense. Beyond that what does betrayal add that asking the player characters to do increasingly questionable stuff does not? That's often more sensible fiction, better storytelling and better gaming.

It would take ages to present the whole story, but the basic scenario was that a long-lost but famous adventuring Company was in town and holding what amounted to a job fair for neophyte adventurers. Each of the players had to, during roll-up night, come up with why their PC(s) would be at this job fair, and the campaign began at the start of a big meeting of all the "applicants".

The applicants were all signed in, then divided into parties (with of course all the PCs being assigned to the same party). Each proto-party was then given what seemed like a simple field-trial mission, and sent into the field; the PCs' party's mission was just to explore and map a supposedly-empty castle/dungeon complex not far from town.

The betrayal: the "Company" was all fake (the real Company disbanded years ago, a long way from here), and the "missions" had been set up as thinly-disguised suicide runs. The complex the PCs had been sent to map wasn't empty at all (a major hint that all wasn't as it seemed!), but they persevered and managed to (mostly) clear it out.

On getting back to town it soon became clear things were a bit off. Of the seven parties sent out, only theirs and parts of one other had returned, and their contact was (blatantly!) surprised to see the PCs when they arrived. On this they started asking questions etc. around town and fairly quickly realized they'd been had. A very long story then followed........

Reason for the betrayal: the "Company" had grand plans for the near future (including overthrow of the throne) and as part of their long-range preparation wanted to strip the city and region of all its neophyte adventurers before they could grow up to become significant threats.

I'm really only concerned about the setting in how it relates to my characters. I don't care about the pages and pages of notes the GM has written until they matter to play. And I say this as a GM who used to spend an inordinate amount of time ahead of play on worldbuilding. More often than not, the vast majority of that effort is wasted. Sure, now and again, a GM will create a cool bit of setting detail that will make me go "ah, that's clever" or similar. But unless it leads to something that is playable, it doesn't really matter.

Thing is, even if those pages and pages of notes never come into play, their existence provides a sound framework for those parts which do. Further, what isn't used now can always be saved for later, particularly in a long-running and-or sprawling campaign.

 

[MGibster]

Like, what would make the players suspicious? Is it GM cues in playing the patron NPC and other NPCs? Is it the ability to leverage contacts and allies in the game world? Class abilities and the like?

Holy cow! I sometimes find that the most innocuous behavior might arouse suspicions for the PCs that this person is a no-goodnik. How to arouse their suspicions without outright telegraphiging that this NPC is a bad guy can be difficult. I've had to throw clues in the forms of bricks at my players' faces and sometimes they still fail to notice the clue.

When it comes to betrayal I think it's really useful to ask why an NPC would betray the PCs. What do they gain from it? Why were they invested in the characters in the first place? What precipitated the face-heel turn? Betrayal tropes in fiction often do not make a whole lot of sense.

Ideally betrayals make sense, or perhaps a twisted kind of sense in some cases. In Cyberpunk 2077, you deal with two fixers who betray/screw you. The first fixer does so because he's in full panic mode and is trying to destroy any evidence that he was ever associated with you in the hopes that this will allow him to go unnoticed by a very powerful enemy. The betrayal makes sense. The second time is when a fixer sends you into a situation where your character is endagered/screwed over. And, again, it makes sense because everyone talks about what a crummy fixer this dude is.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Could be any or all of the above, depending on the situation. The patron might let something slip or do something to arouse suspicion (obvious example: a vampire pulling back from walking past a mirror on the wall), but more useful would be the leveraging of (and, in the case of a new campaign, the making of!) contacts and allies. Class abilities could also come into play, again situationally dependent.

But they key thing is: the players/PCs have to a) be or become suspicious and b) act on it! And for a), they sometimes need to be or become suspicious even if there's no obvious reason to do so, as in "this is too good to be true".

Here's the thing.... the players, even if they're trying to think entirely as their character when they make decisions... will remain aware that they're playing a game and that the game elements including all the NPCs are created by the GM. So very often they will or won't trust a given NPC based on nothing other than player intuition. And I personally don't think there's anything wrong with that... it's unavoidable and trying to prevent it only calls more and more attention to it.

So I set that aside, and if there is reason that an NPC may not be trustworthy, I'm going to offer some possibility for that to be discovered.

It's a game in which I prefer to try and simulate real-life interactions where possible.

Sure, I get that as a guiding principle, but there's more to it. The GM isn't just simulating things... the GM is also creating the things. There's nothing less realistic about a trustworthy patron than an untrustworthy one... there's no reason you can't have chosen to have an honorable patron for the PCs to work with, and craft another way to show them that not everyone can be trusted.

The appeal to simulation isn't specific to what the GM has chosen to do. You can simulate anything you want! You're creating the siutation!

There's two very different types of trust at work here, one of which I care about building and the other of which I'm quite happy to destroy.

1. Out of character, do the players inherently trust me-as-DM to run a good, fair, and fun game? Ideally, yes.
2. In character, do the players' PCs inherently trust anything I-as-GM put in front of them in the setting or fiction? I don't care.

These two things should not impact one another.

I don't really see how they can't. Like, the decisions you make as a GM are going to impact my opinion of the game. I don't really see how it's avoidable.

There are always two levels in that sense... the fiction in the game, and the game itself. The GM decides much of what will be in the fiction, and those decisions aren't separate from a player's evaluation of the game.

Beforehand, none, as this was the very start of the campaign. And I'll pull in @Campbell's post here, as it'll save typing the rest of this twice.

It would take ages to present the whole story, but the basic scenario was that a long-lost but famous adventuring Company was in town and holding what amounted to a job fair for neophyte adventurers. Each of the players had to, during roll-up night, come up with why their PC(s) would be at this job fair, and the campaign began at the start of a big meeting of all the "applicants".

The applicants were all signed in, then divided into parties (with of course all the PCs being assigned to the same party). Each proto-party was then given what seemed like a simple field-trial mission, and sent into the field; the PCs' party's mission was just to explore and map a supposedly-empty castle/dungeon complex not far from town.

The betrayal: the "Company" was all fake (the real Company disbanded years ago, a long way from here), and the "missions" had been set up as thinly-disguised suicide runs. The complex the PCs had been sent to map wasn't empty at all (a major hint that all wasn't as it seemed!), but they persevered and managed to (mostly) clear it out.

On getting back to town it soon became clear things were a bit off. Of the seven parties sent out, only theirs and parts of one other had returned, and their contact was (blatantly!) surprised to see the PCs when they arrived. On this they started asking questions etc. around town and fairly quickly realized they'd been had. A very long story then followed........

Reason for the betrayal: the "Company" had grand plans for the near future (including overthrow of the throne) and as part of their long-range preparation wanted to strip the city and region of all its neophyte adventurers before they could grow up to become significant threats.

I realize the above is incomplete, but looking at it all, the only thing you mention as a possible cue that something is up is that the supposedly empty castle is in fact not empty. I don't know why this would immediately make anyone suspicious of the company instead of just assuming that monsters/humanoids/whatever had simply decided to move into the empty place, but maybe there was more established to suggest the company was involved?

Was there anything else? Did the contact let anything slip? Did any of the locals offer any information about the Company ("I heard they disbanded years ago...")? Did any of the PCs have any contacts in the area they could lean on for information gathering? Did any of the PCs have any foreknowledge of the area or the history of the region or the Company? Were there any reluctant members of the Company who may have tried to clue these poor saps into what was really going on? Or any of the other adventuring parties? Anything at all?

Because based on this sketch you've provided (and this relates to my point above about how we can't always separate the fition and the game), it sounds like the players were given specific elements for PC creation (neophyte adventurer at some kind of recruitment drive), sounds like they were new to the area and to each other, were given a job by an NPC (which is largely the GM saying "here's the game"), and then they went off to an adventure site. The old "abandoned place that now has monsters in it" is such a well worn trope that I can't imagine it would even serve as a clue that something was wrong... but by that point, it doesn't even matter because the trap's already been sprung.

Again, I know the above lacks all the details, but based on what's there, this doesn't sound to me at all like the kind of situation described in the OP.... an environment rich in information and resources that the players can leverage to then set their own agenda. It sounds like a GM who has an idea for an adventure, and then created a scenario to make sure that adventure happened. And that's perfectly fine, but it's simply a different kind of play.

At what point (if any) do you think the players may have learned enough to not go off into the trap? It doesn't seem like much was offered in the game world to allow that to happen. It doesn't sound like the game situation would suggest to the players that they didn't need to just follow along because clearly this is what's been prepared.

Thing is, even if those pages and pages of notes never come into play, their existence provides a sound framework for those parts which do. Further, what isn't used now can always be saved for later, particularly in a long-running and-or sprawling campaign.

Sure, having that kind of stuff can help serve as a framework. I'm just saying it's not necessary... there are other equally valid methods. I think it tends to lead to more rigid GMing, myself, but will of course vary from GM to GM.